List Stickafile portals

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior context by naming what each portal entry contains (name, token, mode, status, file count) and clarifying the shared-vs-inbox mode distinction, though it says nothing about pagination, result limits, or the sensitivity of the exposed token.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact sentences: the first states what is listed, the second states when to call it, the third states when not to. Nothing is padding, and the routing condition is front-loaded after the purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read tool with a full output schema and covering annotations, this is complete. Fields are summarized for orientation, trigger conditions are explicit, and no knowledge an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent parameter guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the Stickafile portals') plus scope ('this account can push to') and enumerates the returned fields. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling 'push' tool, which performs the upload rather than enumerating destinations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit triggering conditions ('when push reports that a portal must be chosen, or when the user asks what portals exist') and an explicit exclusion ('Not needed before an ordinary push'). The agent knows both when to call it and when to skip it relative to the push sibling.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.